3 ms·
> If it's simplicity, it seems like complex programs would be supported by complex libraries instead of complex language features, leading to the same level of
by VyseofArcadia 4y ago
> If it's simplicity, it seems like complex programs would be supported by complex libraries instead of complex language features, leading to the same level of complexity but with less consistency.
In my experience, languages with complex features still have complex libraries. Library complexity is a constant. If you simplify the language, at least you free up a little cognitive load there.
In addition, simplifying the language often implies (or is even equivalent to) minimizing footguns.
- adamddev1 4y agoLike Smalltalk/Pharo, you have 6 keywords in the language and the syntax fits on a postcard. But all the classes/library/environment is huge and complex.
- mirekrusin 4y agoBinary is very simple you need to memorize 0 and 1 and that's it, screw Newton from one of comments above, right?
- _gabe_ 4y agoIf you really want to argue about this, binary makes no sense in this scenario. There's assembly which gets assembled into machine code. Machine code for all intents and purposes is the lowest level that you would consider a language, binary by itself accomplishes nothing. Now you can go see all the arguments about RISC vs CISC, which is the same argument. Should I have a small instruction set that bloats the final program's instruction count? Or a complex set with slower instructions?